What qualifies a person or former president of a country to be charged for crimes against humanity?
Like any crime, there needs to be an accusation and some kind of evidence that points to the accused. Before that, there needs to be a CLEAR description of what a crime against humanity is.
If you're talking international crimes, then the Human Rights Commission has to be overhauled before we can do that. It is overstocked by nations who are chronic human rights violators. This is how insulting a religion was turned into a Rights Violation on the international scene.
The qualification is being on the wrong side politically. For example, after Salvador Allende left office, he visited Europe for medical treatment. He was seized and held for a long time on accusations of human rights violations. The question at the time was asked, why were international arrest warrants not issued for Fidel Castro? It would seem that if one brutal Latin dictator is to be arrested for trial in Brussels, then so would another. The answer was that a sitting ruler cannot be charged.
After Fidel Castro left office, he visited Europe for medical treatment. He was wined and dined, then sent back to Cuba in style when he wanted to go. The question was asked, why was he not seized and held on accusations of human rights violations? The answer was a dead silence from the Europeans.
The difference is Allende was an eevul rightie, Castro a loony leftie. The difference is in their respective political leanings, nothing more. Similarly, you now hear sanctimonious demands that W. Bush be charged with crimes before the ICJ for invading Iraq, but dead silence when it is mentioned that if he is then Obama must be charged for invading Libya.
Politics. That is the only qualification. International law is a joke.
Both swordsbane and Attikos are correct. One of the primary issues is that any charge be backed by a strong legitimate nation state for any action to be taken. But Attikos is dead on and I would say that "politics" and being on the right (whatever that may be at the time) side of the issue is the most important factor. And until one becomes a "former" president there can be no charges brought.
Hi molponetsoka! How's it going?
I'm sure you know that you've asked a very, very, very charged question. We're all grownups here, and therefore I'm sure we all understand that the entities with the power makes the rules -- which never, somehow, seem to apply (for one reason or another) to those rule-making entities. At least that's how it is in this world.
The short answer to your question (or A short answer) is genocide: the deliberate attempt to wipe out a group of people belonging to a specific 'race,' ethnic group, religion, or what-have-you. Genocide is the ultimate crime against humanity; it is the ultimate crime against the very idea of humanity.
I am no expert in these matters, but I understand that there is sometimes some politically-motivated misapplication of the term and ambiguity of application in situations, countries where civil wars are going on. My understanding that killing in a civil war is not genocide or a crime against humanity; the killing, in this instance, is just what both or all sides 'have to do' to survive.
I always thought torture, or what the United States euphemistically calls 'enhanced interrogation techniques' was a crime against humanity, because it is a crime against the very idea of humanity -- human beings (being human beings) should not do things to other human beings like, say, make him stand on one foot all day, covered in a black hood, with fake electrodes attached to his private parts, telling him that if he lets his foot fall he will be electrocuted, for example.
Just a thought. Thanks for the question. Take it easy.
There are plenty of things that qualify a president for crimes against humanity, the real trick isn't the conviction, is the consequences. Even if you were able to charge and convict a pres or former-pres, there is very little you could do to actually have them pay for their crimes.
by Patty Florence 13 days ago
President Obama was an excellent president because he stood for old-fashioned values, the ones that I learned in school when I was growing up. The way the world sees things these days, old-fashioned values aren't as cherished as they once were. Or, maybe they are! A good example is when he...
by Mary Neal 5 years ago
Former president Jimmy Carter says America's not a 'functioning democracy'? What do you think?Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview with Der Spiegel, said he supported whistleblower Edward Snowden and that the NSA’s domestic spying program was against American values. Carter went on to...
by Xenonlit 6 years ago
What kind of speech could cause the Secret Service to show up, question and perhaps arrest someone?The recent Ted Nugent debacle has caused a national stir. Many Americans are expressing themselves in wild and crazy ways. An awful lot of them do not realize that some statements can get them...
by mbuggieh 4 years ago
On 17 February 2014, CNN reports that there is "abundant evidence of crimes against humanity in North Korea". What might be an appropriate response of the United States to this information?Here is a link to the CNN article:http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/world/asi … ?hpt=hp_t1
by Masood Ali 9 years ago
What is the qualification of former president of Mr. Bush?
by David Stillwell 3 years ago
Who is responsible for current economic conditions of the United States. Congress or the president?I am interested in your opinions, rants, and factual comments. Have at it people... I value all opinions even if I do not agree with them.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|